So for the last 4 years starting in 2014 I have been on Obamacare/ACA. My first year of coverage cost my company $501 a month.

This coming year it will increase almost 30% to a whopping $904 a month.

The first year 2015 went up 2% , 2016 2nd year 10%, 2017 3rd year 20%, 2018 3% and next year it will increase 29% to $904...

That is an 80% increase from my first year enrolled.

What's affordable about this?

I'm calling out both sides of the aisle on this. No way one party is to blame for this kind of robbery.

You're wrong, one party is very specifically to blame for this. (It's not the Democrats)

If you can explain why they aren't I'd love to hear it.

They created something that is spiraling out of control with costs now so they are getting some blame too.

Let's start simple and work our way up:

Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time.

So for the last 4 years starting in 2014 I have been on Obamacare/ACA. My first year of coverage cost my company $501 a month.

This coming year it will increase almost 30% to a whopping $904 a month.

The first year 2015 went up 2% , 2016 2nd year 10%, 2017 3rd year 20%, 2018 3% and next year it will increase 29% to $904...

That is an 80% increase from my first year enrolled.

What's affordable about this?

I'm calling out both sides of the aisle on this. No way one party is to blame for this kind of robbery.

You're wrong, one party is very specifically to blame for this. (It's not the Democrats)

If you can explain why they aren't I'd love to hear it.

They created something that is spiraling out of control with costs now so they are getting some blame too.

Let's start simple and work our way up:

Blue light is scattered in all directions by the tiny molecules of air in Earth's atmosphere. Blue is scattered more than other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time.

Why don’t they take a “good plan” and make it better?Because it sucks. Yes, the R’s have failed to do anything better and that’s embarrassing, but let’s not pretend that Obamacare isn’t anything but a huge mess.I can think of only 2 groups who are better off with it; those who couldn’t get covered due to pre-existing condition (which would only apply to self or unemployed) and those who get subsidized care.And don’t forget its subsidized by overcharging every healthy 20 and 30 year olds (you know, that age group just out of college who are living in their mom’s basement in record numbers, struggling to pay student loans, those people) on top of forcing them to buy more coverage than they want or need.I don’t have data on the numbers, but I know more people who chose to pay the penalty and not carry insurance than those who benefit from it. Aside from a terminal illness, there’s no need for a healthy 25 year old to pay $700/month for insurance.

A lot of what’s wrong isn’t ACA, but the system that it forces us to join.At $1800/month I am forced to pay out, you’d think that covers everything. It doesn’t. We’ll have at least $500 of bills for this month alone because of 2 dr visits for my son and me, and a colonoscopy and ultrasound my wife had. The costs are outrageous. Even after serious medical issues, the insurance company still makes money. Imagine if car insurance worked like that. Your car gets stolen and they send you a check, then you realize 3 months of insurance was equal to the value of your car. You’d probably drop insurance, right?

A lot of what’s wrong isn’t ACA, but the system that it forces us to join.At $1800/month I am forced to pay out, you’d think that covers everything. It doesn’t. We’ll have at least $500 of bills for this month alone because of 2 dr visits for my son and me, and a colonoscopy and ultrasound my wife had. The costs are outrageous. Even after serious medical issues, the insurance company still makes money. Imagine if car insurance worked like that. Your car gets stolen and they send you a check, then you realize 3 months of insurance was equal to the value of your car. You’d probably drop insurance, right?

A lot of what’s wrong isn’t ACA, but the system that it forces us to join.At $1800/month I am forced to pay out, you’d think that covers everything. It doesn’t. We’ll have at least $500 of bills for this month alone because of 2 dr visits for my son and me, and a colonoscopy and ultrasound my wife had. The costs are outrageous. Even after serious medical issues, the insurance company still makes money. Imagine if car insurance worked like that. Your car gets stolen and they send you a check, then you realize 3 months of insurance was equal to the value of your car. You’d probably drop insurance, right?

Also look up at what most sane Americans care about for these upcoming elections yep you guessed it healthcare it’s above 50% nationwide that’s what most people care about and Republicans are on the wrong side of the argument !

Also look up at what most sane Americans care about for these upcoming elections yep you guessed it healthcare it’s above 50% nationwide that’s what most people care about and Republicans are on the wrong side of the argument !

But they’re running on lies. Like Walker in Wisconsin claiming you’ll be able to get insurance with pre-existing conditions while he’s actually defunded that provision. The repubs are lying sack of shits. Wait until people sign up for their “cheaper” version and realize it doesn’t cover much of anything. Suckers.

There’s so many different numbers out there. Most include people who lost their insurance because of ACA then signed up under ACA.And I bet this number will drop because I heard thenpenaltiy for not having insurance is going away, so all those young healthy people forced to pay outrageous prices for coverage or pay a fine will no longer have to pay a fine if they opt out.

The
Trump administration is urging states to tear down pillars of the
Affordable Care Act, demolishing a basic rule that federal insurance
subsidies can be used only for people buying health plans in
marketplaces created under the law.

According to
advice issued Thursday by federal health officials, states would be
free to redefine the use of those subsidies, which have since 2014
provided the first help the government ever has offered consumers to
afford monthly insurance premiums.

States could
allow the subsidies to be used for health plans the administration has
been promoting outside the ACA marketplaces that are less expensive
because they provide skimpier benefits and fewer consumer protections.
Even more dramatic, states could let residents with employer-based
coverage set up accounts in which they mingle the federal subsidies with
health-care funds from their job or personal tax-deferred savings funds
to use for premiums or other medical expenses.

If
some states take up the administration’s offer, it would undermine the
ACA’s central changes to the nation’s insurance system, including the
establishment of nationwide standards for many kinds of health coverage
sold in the United States.

Another goal of the
ACA, the sprawling 2010 law that was President Barack Obama’s preeminent
domestic accomplishment, was to concentrate help on the so-called
individual insurance market that serves people who do not have access to
affordable health benefits through a job. Prices were often out of
control and discrimination against unhealthy people was more prevalent
before the ACA imposed required benefits, prohibited insurers from
charging more to people with pre-existing conditions and created a
federal health exchange and similar state-run marketplace in which
private insurance companies compete for customers.

The
ACA health plans have been the only ones for which consumers can use
the subsidies, designed to help customers with incomes up to the middle
class — 400 percent of the federal poverty line — afford the premiums.

The
new advice, called “waiver concepts” because they are ideas for how
states could get federal permission to deviate from the law’s basic
rules, stray from both of those goals. And it would allow states to set
difference income limits for the subsidies — higher or lower than the
federal one.

The day before they were released
by Seema Verma, administrator of the Department of Health and Human
Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an analysis by the
Brookings Institution questioned the legality of the content and method
of these concepts. The analysis by Christen Linke Young, a Brookings
fellow and HHS alumni from the Obama administration, contends that
“there are serious questions” about whether the changes are allowable
under the law and that “at the very least, it is likely invalid” for CMS
to issue the advice to states without going through the formal steps to
change federal regulations.

In a statement
Thursday, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said: “The Trump administration is
committed to empowering states to think creatively about how to secure
quality, affordable healthcare choices for their citizens.” He said the
four recommendations issued Thursday, including accounts in which
consumers could pool federal subsidies and other funds, are intended to
“show how state governments can work with HHS to create more choices and
greater flexibility in their health insurance markets, helping to bring
down costs and expand access to care.”

In
urging states to consider the changes, CMS is renaming a provision of
the law, known as 1332, which until now has mainly been used to give
states permission to create programs to ease the burden on insurers of
high-cost customers. CMS is switching the name to “State Relief and
Empowerment Waivers,” emphasizing the administration’s desire to hand
off health-care policies to states.

The changes
go beyond a variety of other steps Trump administration health
officials have taken in the past year to weaken the ACA, which the
president has opposed vociferously.

Until now,
they have focused on bending the ACA’s rules for health plans
themselves. The administration has rewritten regulations to make it
easier for Americans to by two types of insurance that is relatively
inexpensive because it does not contain all the benefits and consumer
protections that the ACA typically requires.

The
new steps go further by undercutting the basic ACA structure of the
insurance marketplaces created for those who cannot get affordable
health benefits through a job.

During a
conference call with journalists, Verma said that no state would be
allowed to retreat from a popular aspect of the ACA that protects people
with pre-existing medical conditions from higher prices or an inability
to buy coverage.

She said that, in evaluating
states’ proposals, CMS would focus on several considerations, including
whether changes would foster comprehensive coverage and affordability
and would not increase the federal deficit. She said federal officials
would favor proposals that help, in particular, low-income residents and
people with complex medical problems.

Verma
reiterated an administration talking point that insurance rates have
escalated since the ACA was passed and that health plan choices within
ACA marketplaces have dwindled. However, the current ACA enrollment
period, lasting until mid-December, is different than in the previous
few because prices for the most popular tier of coverage have stabilized
in many places and more insurers are taking part in the marketplaces.